commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Luc Maisonobe <>
Subject Re: (MATH-608) Remove methods from RealMatrix Interface
Date Sat, 02 Jul 2011 16:39:16 GMT
Hi all,

Le 02/07/2011 18:20, Ted Dunning a écrit :
> That won't work.
> That only works for statically declared matrix types, not run-time matrix
> types.  To be usable, the suggested mechanism must work against runtime
> data-types.

I agree with this need to work with runtime data-types.
In one of your messages, you wrote about marker predicated like 
isSymmetric() or the like. In another message, you wrote about using 
instanceof. What would be the better approach ?

Another point is about the implementation of iterative solvers (see 
<>). Could the operators 
proposed in the two issues (MATH-581 and MATH-608) be merged together ?

best regards,

> On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 1:38 AM, Matthew Pocock<
>> wrote:
>> You may get more mileage by having a matrix operation interface that has is
>> parameterised over the two matrix types. It would have things like multiply
>> once and you would have different concrete implementations for different
>> pairs of matrix types. The implementations can even be provided via one of
>> the matrix classes to allow it to take advantage of the matrix internal
>> structure without exposing it.
>> On 1 Jul 2011 22:49, "Ted Dunning"<>  wrote:
>> Double dispatch was the wrong term.  I should have said double argument
>> polymorphism.  Double dispatch is a sub-optimal answer to the problem of
>> double polymorphism.
>> Apologies for polluting the discussion with a silly error.
>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Greg Sterijevski<
>>> wrote:
>>> Ted,
>>> I am not sure why you think there will be double dispatch. If we remove
>> the
>>> multiplica...

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message